illuusio

Well... effect is naturally very small with photons (with used length in gyros), BUT those laser gyros actually are not so reliable. Gyros tend to lock-in (partially because of scattering).

Ou.. current version is 22 You can get it from the link in my signature. Mmm... and masses include atom nucleus as well.

Check my theory there is explanation for what you just asked.

Nope. Vertical is in this case up to the air

No I didn't. M-M result doesn't conflict Fizeau's experiment. M-M experiment could only detect ether "wind" which is horizontal that's why negative result for moving ether.

How do you distribute to the topic Should I go and whine to admins..? LOL

Tesla was obviously on the right tracks. But what's that all government stuff? I don't believe that there would be any resistance or hiding if somebody makes a working apparatus based on ether. Hmm... I can be wrong also... Where is Ning Li??? If this message is removed don't call 911

Ok, nobrainer, I'm ready to read your theory! Is there some place I can find the paper of yours?

I agree but you started it I promise to read your theory with open mind and give some valid feedback, ok? Do you have a link to it? Or can you attach it into this thread? I read it tomorrow now it's time to sleep, cu!

You show me proof of debunking this: 1. The universe is run by tiny man-bear-bigs. They so tiny that modern or future science can't detect them 2. My salad bowl must be washed or does it...? And these create at least gravitation, maybe my car, maybe. Give me some equations first, ok?

Your "theory" is the worst word salad ever with hint of hand waving You don't have ANY equations to get some predictions, I have, plenty. Beat that.

Beating your "theories" is child's play to me Dark matter is not need. Have you read my theory?

Galactic rotation problem can be solved just by modifying the "constant" G. It can be done simpler

To me that sounds kind of defence. Well, I can't understand that so there is no need for that. You understand what I mean?

Yes M-M showed that we are not moving through the ether, actually we create the ether and it's dragging a little. So? There is no evidence that there can't have ether. Actually there is experiment (Fizeau experiment) which proves ether (other than my experiment). How these pointers are related to partially dragging ether? Do you have some kind of reference to claim that they don't work perfectly in horizontal plane? On surface of Earth I mean.

Right... those "things" don't function as perfectly as they should function and I wonder why... I refer to lock-in, specially with low rotating speed. What a heck you are talking about? Talking about Michelson-Morley's possible system error is totally good topic, don't you think my friend?

Fundamental force alright but no not so effective from long range.

Interpenetrated by electromagnetism? What is that electromagnetism? Free electrons? Free protons? We should detect those particles.

Your response is way too personal which is sad and against the rules of forum. The idea that M-M experiment is based on wrong idea at the first place is significant. If you can't see the picture you need a glasses. If you agree, pretend that you do, that ether wind happens vertically in relation to Earth could M-M E detect it? Here is more information on Fresnel's ether (search) -> http://redshift.vif....DF/v05n3nas.pdf THE reason why there is partial ether-dragging detected is due to vertical position (related to Earth) of water movement.

Stick to the issue here Can you disagree with my observation with M-M experiments error? Mmm... it's eating you up that I won't disclose my experiment But can you agree that M-M experiment is wrongly executed? Who says that ether wind should be horizontal?

Everybody knows this experiment -> http://en.wikipedia....rley_experiment Problem with that experiment was thought direction of ether "wind". Ether "wind" happens from inside of Earth. Only at North Pole ether is moving towards Earth. So Fresnel's theory of almost stationary ether is still valid

I'm back from my one week ban First of all I'm VERY happy about it, so many thanks to hypervalent_iodine!!! You provocated me and because of that I got banned. So why thank? Well... I almost revealed my ether experiment to you guys! That would have been HUGE mistake, I mean HUGE!!! But during the ban I got information from friend of mine that I shouldn't reveal anything related to that experiment. That's because of patent issues. So I'll disclosure my experiment after I got the patent or before that if I make that pending patent public because of commercial product. So... from my behalf this thread can be closed because I won't disclosure that ether proving experiment at this point. One more time, thank you hypervalent_iodine!!!

If you have something to tell related to my theory do it with message (in case of being not polite). And if don't have anything constructive (negative or positive) to say, I put you on my ignore list. I'll come back to this thread after finishing my experiments and sending my patent application. I'm lucky that I live in modern days. Few hundreds years ago my destination would have been quite different

LOL If you can't wait few days you are impatient. You can close this thread if you desire to do so. Closing this thread doesn't effect my progress in any way, loss is in your side.

Now that I think of what you have said, I think that you are not quite understood aberration of light. Why mixing ether at all with AoL? Sure ether causes light to bend, but not that much in case of Earth. AoL is related to finite speed of light with velocity of observer and his telescope (tube).